|the ratio of carbon and nitrogen isotopes can also reveal an animal’s diet

That's amazing. I knew about radioactive carbon dating but that seems like it opens up a whole new set of opportunities for archaeologists to learn from.

Also, is it safe for the researchers to assume that the felids must have been given millet just because they found more millet than hunted game in these remains?

Couldn't the cats have just snuck into where the millet was being stored and eaten some without it being expressly given to them by humans? Or does that still qualify as a step in the process of animal domestication because the animals are developing a dependence? It just seems like a bit of a leap in their logical induction process.

Ah, as soon as I started reading this, I was wondering about the species too. Felis silvestris lybica, the putative ancestor of the domestic cat, I don't think is supposed to be native to that area, more Africa and close by in Asia, as I remember. But I suppose they could always have been traded. But there are multiple closely related subspecies, like Felis Silvestris silvestris, the european wildcat, which looks just like a domestic cat.

|the ratio of carbon and nitrogen isotopes can also reveal an animal’s diet

That's amazing. I knew about radioactive carbon dating but that seems like it opens up a whole new set of opportunities for archaeologists to learn from.

Also, is it safe for the researchers to assume that the felids must have been given millet just because they found more millet than hunted game in these remains?

Couldn't the cats have just snuck into where the millet was being stored and eaten some without it being expressly given to them by humans? Or does that still qualify as a step in the process of animal domestication because the animals are developing a dependence? It just seems like a bit of a leap in their logical induction process.

Cats aren't going to be eating raw millet (little hard seeds). Cats would either get cooked millet from humans, or get it from eating rodents that had been eating millet. I'm not really clear how one differentiates between a cat that ate human-provided millet and a cat that got millet exposure through eating rodents that ate millet. But I assume there is some evidence they are using to distinguish between those two cases.

Ah, as soon as I started reading this, I was wondering about the species too. Felis silvestris lybica, the putative ancestor of the domestic cat, I don't think is supposed to be native to that area, more Africa and close by in Asia, as I remember. But I suppose they could always have been traded. But there are multiple closely related subspecies, like Felis Silvestris silvestris, the european wildcat, which looks just like a domestic cat.

I was also thinking about that. If the earliest evidence of domestic cats is in China, then that probably just means we haven't found the evidence that must be out there for earlier domestic cats in the Mediterranean basin (or maybe such evidence is lost to time). But the unlikely explanation is that some small sub-population of lybica got all the way over to China, was domesticated there, then worked its way back to the Med.

|the ratio of carbon and nitrogen isotopes can also reveal an animal’s diet

That's amazing. I knew about radioactive carbon dating but that seems like it opens up a whole new set of opportunities for archaeologists to learn from.

Also, is it safe for the researchers to assume that the felids must have been given millet just because they found more millet than hunted game in these remains?

Couldn't the cats have just snuck into where the millet was being stored and eaten some without it being expressly given to them by humans? Or does that still qualify as a step in the process of animal domestication because the animals are developing a dependence? It just seems like a bit of a leap in their logical induction process.

Cats aren't going to be eating raw millet (little hard seeds). Cats would either get cooked millet from humans, or get it from eating rodents that had been eating millet. I'm not really clear how one differentiates between a cat that ate human-provided millet and a cat that got millet exposure through eating rodents that ate millet. But I assume there is some evidence they are using to distinguish between those two cases.

Yes. The idea of cats eating millet struck me as very odd as well. Cats are true carnivores and probably would not do well on a diet of millet. I'm not sure they would take to it even if it were cooked for them.

|the ratio of carbon and nitrogen isotopes can also reveal an animal’s diet

That's amazing. I knew about radioactive carbon dating but that seems like it opens up a whole new set of opportunities for archaeologists to learn from.

Also, is it safe for the researchers to assume that the felids must have been given millet just because they found more millet than hunted game in these remains?

Couldn't the cats have just snuck into where the millet was being stored and eaten some without it being expressly given to them by humans? Or does that still qualify as a step in the process of animal domestication because the animals are developing a dependence? It just seems like a bit of a leap in their logical induction process.

Cats aren't going to be eating raw millet (little hard seeds). Cats would either get cooked millet from humans, or get it from eating rodents that had been eating millet. I'm not really clear how one differentiates between a cat that ate human-provided millet and a cat that got millet exposure through eating rodents that ate millet. But I assume there is some evidence they are using to distinguish between those two cases.

Yes. The idea of cats eating millet struck me as very odd as well. Cats are true carnivores and probably would not do well on a diet of millet. I'm not sure they would take to it even if it were cooked for them.

If it's mixed in with some meat. Humans have been stretching cat/dog food with grain for millenia.

This is an often-repeated joke about the temperament of cats, but it's actually got a grain of truth to it, as well. Aside from making them not afraid of humans (with proper socialization), we have not changed cats much. It wouldn't surprise me, however, if some human settlements intentionally modified their preferred crops, planting styles, or storage methods to facilitate cats' pest control roll.

|the ratio of carbon and nitrogen isotopes can also reveal an animal’s diet

That's amazing. I knew about radioactive carbon dating but that seems like it opens up a whole new set of opportunities for archaeologists to learn from.

Also, is it safe for the researchers to assume that the felids must have been given millet just because they found more millet than hunted game in these remains?

Couldn't the cats have just snuck into where the millet was being stored and eaten some without it being expressly given to them by humans? Or does that still qualify as a step in the process of animal domestication because the animals are developing a dependence? It just seems like a bit of a leap in their logical induction process.

Cats can not properly digest plant matter. Their obligate carnivore biology is actually a major part of their domestication use - dogs can be trained to be fairly effective rat hunters, but will also happily scarf down the grains they're supposed to protect. Cats, however, do not care for grains, and will proceed instead to use grain stores as a big pile of mouse bait.

|the ratio of carbon and nitrogen isotopes can also reveal an animal’s diet

That's amazing. I knew about radioactive carbon dating but that seems like it opens up a whole new set of opportunities for archaeologists to learn from.

Also, is it safe for the researchers to assume that the felids must have been given millet just because they found more millet than hunted game in these remains?

Couldn't the cats have just snuck into where the millet was being stored and eaten some without it being expressly given to them by humans? Or does that still qualify as a step in the process of animal domestication because the animals are developing a dependence? It just seems like a bit of a leap in their logical induction process.

Cats can not properly digest plant matter. Their obligate carnivore biology is actually a major part of their domestication use - dogs can be trained to be fairly effective rat hunters, but will also happily scarf down the grains they're supposed to protect. Cats, however, do not care for grains, and will proceed instead to use grain stores as a big pile of mouse bait.

I'm not sure most dogs would be eating a big pile of raw millet, either.

My wife and I were speculating about how cats were domesticated versus dogs just yesterday... (Its the kind of conversations you start to have when your small children start to learn about animals). This will be very useful, thanks.

Cats aren't going to be eating raw millet (little hard seeds). Cats would either get cooked millet from humans, or get it from eating rodents that had been eating millet.

"Working" cats also get some raw grains from eating the stomachs of their prey. Friends of mine in farm country keep outdoor cats to control the mice that invade from nearby fields. When the cats catch a mouse they basically eat everything but the gall bladder and skull, including undigested stomach contents. But your basic point stands. The cats aren't going to be eating the grains on their own.

My friends feed their garage cats all the dry food they want. But the cats still love to hunt them mousies. And voles, and moles, and ...

Maybe domesticated cats really are aliens in disguise. We need an airgap between the Internet and the dish at Arecibo to keep them from calling home and ordering reinforcements! First it was witches and cats, now it's geeks with cats. Maybe there is a secret website where all get together to plot against humans. like Catspaws.cat or .com or something.Maybe that's why Google bought Boston Dynamics with all those robots named after dogs. Now Google can shut them down. lol

I think the evidence from Cyprus is more compelling for domestication, because there is no reason why a cat would have been buried with a person if that cat wasn't that person's property. These Chinese cats were 4000 years after the fact of first domestication and can't possibly shed light on how cats first got domesticated. It's like looking at a Ford-F150 and trying to deduce from that when and where people first made wheels.

|the ratio of carbon and nitrogen isotopes can also reveal an animal’s diet

That's amazing. I knew about radioactive carbon dating but that seems like it opens up a whole new set of opportunities for archaeologists to learn from.

Also, is it safe for the researchers to assume that the felids must have been given millet just because they found more millet than hunted game in these remains?

Couldn't the cats have just snuck into where the millet was being stored and eaten some without it being expressly given to them by humans? Or does that still qualify as a step in the process of animal domestication because the animals are developing a dependence? It just seems like a bit of a leap in their logical induction process.

Cats can not properly digest plant matter. Their obligate carnivore biology is actually a major part of their domestication use - dogs can be trained to be fairly effective rat hunters, but will also happily scarf down the grains they're supposed to protect. Cats, however, do not care for grains, and will proceed instead to use grain stores as a big pile of mouse bait.

I'm not sure most dogs would be eating a big pile of raw millet, either.

Not raw, but for thousands of years, the primary food of many dogs was table scraps. They largely ate what people ate until people invented Purina. It's largely the case for cats too, but cats are more picky about what they eat and will pick off the meat-containing pieces for the most part whereas dogs will pretty much scarf down everything except the few items that are distasteful to them.

By the way, you should not miss the name of the lead researcher, Yaowu Hu. My cat quotes him extensively.

This is an often-repeated joke about the temperament of cats, but it's actually got a grain of truth to it, as well. Aside from making them not afraid of humans (with proper socialization), we have not changed cats much. It wouldn't surprise me, however, if some human settlements intentionally modified their preferred crops, planting styles, or storage methods to facilitate cats' pest control roll.

I've been quite certain for some time it was actually cats and dogs that got us to build more permanent dwellings specifically for the comfort of the pets.

my dog needs pillows and understands perfect english as did one of the last two that I owned. my current dog is even smarter and more in-tune with me than my last one, it's downright creepy.

some say it's coincidence when the dog reacts to spoken words not spoken to the dog, when that happens on a day to day, hour to hour basis coincidence doesn't fit and you have to watch what you say around your damn dog. I'm on my second set of dogs that I've had as my own as an adult after having dogs my whole life. three of those dogs have showed wicked awareness of human words in conversations between two people not about or directed to the dogs.

One of my prior dogs would turn around and sit with her back to you if you ever talked about her revealing embarrassing traits to another person every single time. You'd get "the back".

I'm not a dog person, I'm a dog and cat person and have also had four cats. Cats have us licked plain and simple. They scoff the dogs for working so much harder to get that comfy bed.

I've been quite certain for some time it was actually cats and dogs that got us to build more permanent dwellings specifically for the comfort of the pets.

No, dogs could become more pet-like once agriculture started, but man and dog has lived together for more than 20 times longer than we have had agriculture, and you don't have permanent homes without agriculture. (Cat might have come with agriculture and permanent homes).

|the ratio of carbon and nitrogen isotopes can also reveal an animal’s diet

That's amazing. I knew about radioactive carbon dating but that seems like it opens up a whole new set of opportunities for archaeologists to learn from.

Also, is it safe for the researchers to assume that the felids must have been given millet just because they found more millet than hunted game in these remains?

Couldn't the cats have just snuck into where the millet was being stored and eaten some without it being expressly given to them by humans? Or does that still qualify as a step in the process of animal domestication because the animals are developing a dependence? It just seems like a bit of a leap in their logical induction process.

Cats can not properly digest plant matter. Their obligate carnivore biology is actually a major part of their domestication use - dogs can be trained to be fairly effective rat hunters, but will also happily scarf down the grains they're supposed to protect. Cats, however, do not care for grains, and will proceed instead to use grain stores as a big pile of mouse bait.

I'm not sure most dogs would be eating a big pile of raw millet, either.

Not raw, but for thousands of years, the primary food of many dogs was table scraps. They largely ate what people ate until people invented Purina. It's largely the case for cats too, but cats are more picky about what they eat and will pick off the meat-containing pieces for the most part whereas dogs will pretty much scarf down everything except the few items that are distasteful to them.

By the way, you should not miss the name of the lead researcher, Yaowu Hu. My cat quotes him extensively.

Cats are obligate carnivores that lack some the enzymes that allow other carnivores to properly digest carbohydrates and synthesize amino acids like taurine for example. Feral and wild cats do eat bone and feathers. Most of the time they leave nothing at all.

This is an often-repeated joke about the temperament of cats, but it's actually got a grain of truth to it, as well. Aside from making them not afraid of humans (with proper socialization), we have not changed cats much. It wouldn't surprise me, however, if some human settlements intentionally modified their preferred crops, planting styles, or storage methods to facilitate cats' pest control roll.

And now the Chinese kill cats en-masse as pests. Over 5,400 years, numerous dynasties, and an attempt at Communism that resulted in a body count that dwarfed any other up to that point (48 million, right?), it appears something essential was lost.

|the ratio of carbon and nitrogen isotopes can also reveal an animal’s diet

That's amazing. I knew about radioactive carbon dating but that seems like it opens up a whole new set of opportunities for archaeologists to learn from.

Also, is it safe for the researchers to assume that the felids must have been given millet just because they found more millet than hunted game in these remains?

Couldn't the cats have just snuck into where the millet was being stored and eaten some without it being expressly given to them by humans? Or does that still qualify as a step in the process of animal domestication because the animals are developing a dependence? It just seems like a bit of a leap in their logical induction process.

Cats can not properly digest plant matter. Their obligate carnivore biology is actually a major part of their domestication use - dogs can be trained to be fairly effective rat hunters, but will also happily scarf down the grains they're supposed to protect. Cats, however, do not care for grains, and will proceed instead to use grain stores as a big pile of mouse bait.

I'm not sure most dogs would be eating a big pile of raw millet, either.

My dogs will snuff around the base of the bird feeder and happily consume any fallen grain/cracked corn/millet/etc that falls. I have to keep the birdseed bag closed and away from them, or they would happily gorge on its contents until it was empty. FWIW.

|the ratio of carbon and nitrogen isotopes can also reveal an animal’s diet

That's amazing. I knew about radioactive carbon dating but that seems like it opens up a whole new set of opportunities for archaeologists to learn from.

Also, is it safe for the researchers to assume that the felids must have been given millet just because they found more millet than hunted game in these remains?

Couldn't the cats have just snuck into where the millet was being stored and eaten some without it being expressly given to them by humans? Or does that still qualify as a step in the process of animal domestication because the animals are developing a dependence? It just seems like a bit of a leap in their logical induction process.

Cats can not properly digest plant matter. Their obligate carnivore biology is actually a major part of their domestication use - dogs can be trained to be fairly effective rat hunters, but will also happily scarf down the grains they're supposed to protect. Cats, however, do not care for grains, and will proceed instead to use grain stores as a big pile of mouse bait.

I'm not sure most dogs would be eating a big pile of raw millet, either.

My dogs will snuff around the base of the bird feeder and happily consume any fallen grain/cracked corn/millet/etc that falls. I have to keep the birdseed bag closed and away from them, or they would happily gorge on its contents until it was empty. FWIW.

|the ratio of carbon and nitrogen isotopes can also reveal an animal’s diet

That's amazing. I knew about radioactive carbon dating but that seems like it opens up a whole new set of opportunities for archaeologists to learn from.

Also, is it safe for the researchers to assume that the felids must have been given millet just because they found more millet than hunted game in these remains?

Couldn't the cats have just snuck into where the millet was being stored and eaten some without it being expressly given to them by humans? Or does that still qualify as a step in the process of animal domestication because the animals are developing a dependence? It just seems like a bit of a leap in their logical induction process.

Cats can not properly digest plant matter. Their obligate carnivore biology is actually a major part of their domestication use - dogs can be trained to be fairly effective rat hunters, but will also happily scarf down the grains they're supposed to protect. Cats, however, do not care for grains, and will proceed instead to use grain stores as a big pile of mouse bait.

I'm not sure most dogs would be eating a big pile of raw millet, either.

Not raw, but for thousands of years, the primary food of many dogs was table scraps. They largely ate what people ate until people invented Purina. It's largely the case for cats too, but cats are more picky about what they eat and will pick off the meat-containing pieces for the most part whereas dogs will pretty much scarf down everything except the few items that are distasteful to them.

By the way, you should not miss the name of the lead researcher, Yaowu Hu. My cat quotes him extensively.

Cats are obligate carnivores that lack some the enzymes that allow other carnivores to properly digest carbohydrates and synthesize amino acids like taurine for example. Feral and wild cats do eat bone and feathers. Most of the time they leave nothing at all.

You never see a wild cat that's not hungry. But even domesticated cats eat feathers and bone, and swallow mice whole.

|the ratio of carbon and nitrogen isotopes can also reveal an animal’s diet*snip*

Yes. The idea of cats eating millet struck me as very odd as well. Cats are true carnivores and probably would not do well on a diet of millet. I'm not sure they would take to it even if it were cooked for them.

I dunno, I'm eating oreos right now and my cat's pretty darn irritated I haven't given him his tribute yet...

|the ratio of carbon and nitrogen isotopes can also reveal an animal’s diet

That's amazing. I knew about radioactive carbon dating but that seems like it opens up a whole new set of opportunities for archaeologists to learn from.

Also, is it safe for the researchers to assume that the felids must have been given millet just because they found more millet than hunted game in these remains?

Couldn't the cats have just snuck into where the millet was being stored and eaten some without it being expressly given to them by humans? Or does that still qualify as a step in the process of animal domestication because the animals are developing a dependence? It just seems like a bit of a leap in their logical induction process.

Cats can not properly digest plant matter. Their obligate carnivore biology is actually a major part of their domestication use - dogs can be trained to be fairly effective rat hunters, but will also happily scarf down the grains they're supposed to protect. Cats, however, do not care for grains, and will proceed instead to use grain stores as a big pile of mouse bait.

I'm not sure most dogs would be eating a big pile of raw millet, either.

Not raw, but for thousands of years, the primary food of many dogs was table scraps. They largely ate what people ate until people invented Purina. It's largely the case for cats too, but cats are more picky about what they eat and will pick off the meat-containing pieces for the most part whereas dogs will pretty much scarf down everything except the few items that are distasteful to them.

By the way, you should not miss the name of the lead researcher, Yaowu Hu. My cat quotes him extensively.

Cats are obligate carnivores that lack some the enzymes that allow other carnivores to properly digest carbohydrates and synthesize amino acids like taurine for example. Feral and wild cats do eat bone and feathers. Most of the time they leave nothing at all.

You never see a wild cat that's not hungry. But even domesticated cats eat feathers and bone, and swallow mice whole.

I once sat down and watched my cat eat every part of a squirrel except for its bushy tail. The sound of it her jaws cracking open the skull and tiny incisors skittering across the garage floor will haunt me forever and ever and ever.

I am reminded of "the Cat that Walked by Himself, walking by his wild lone through the Wet Wild Woods and waving his wild tail."

Quote:

I once sat down and watched my cat eat every part of a squirrel except for its bushy tail. The sound of it her jaws cracking open the skull and tiny incisors skittering across the garage floor will haunt me forever and ever and ever.

Did she eat the nose too? I remember a friend of mine telling me that her cat would eat squirrels, but leave the nose and the tail......

I was intrigued by a poster above who said the cat always leaves the gall-bladder. Which makes eminent sense, but seems like incredibly finicky eating (have you seen the SIZE of a mouse gall-bladder?) Bit like eating fugu......